Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07
review-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07-rtgdir-lc-halpern-2022-06-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07
Requested revision 07 (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-06-07
Requested 2022-05-24
Requested by Andrew Alston
Authors Parag Jain , Ali Sajassi , Samer Salam , Sami Boutros , Greg Mirsky
I-D last updated 2022-06-16
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -08 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -08 by Di Ma (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Comments 
Requesting last call review before advancing this
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/opQgatA_qE2DbwxBvMm5ifFA5QY
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-06-16
review-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07-rtgdir-lc-halpern-2022-06-16-00
This is a routing directorate review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-07
provided by Joel Halpern at the request of the routing directorate review team
leaders as input to the routing area directors.  Please treat as any other
review comments.

(Apologies for the delay.)

This document is Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Comments:
Major: None

Minor:
    Section 4.1 describes the EVPN MAC Sub-TLV.  And states it is derived from
    MAC/IP advertisement route.  I note that in RFC 7623 (PBB-EVPN) there are
    restrictions on several of these fields.  Should this section note at least
    that in the PBB-EVPN case those restrictions apply (probably with a
    pointer, not repeating the restrictions)?

     Section 4.4 describes EVPN IP Prefix Sub-TLV.  From the wording I suspect
     that it applies only to the EVPN case and not to the PBB-EVPN case.  In
     4.3, the text was explicit about that applicability.  Could we be equally
     clear here?